It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: kruphix
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Vasa Croe
But Foval and Creamer worked together and Foval stated that he got his orders from Creamer...Foval also stated they set up agitator training all over the US, so Creamer signed off on it.
That's quite the logical leap there.
There is a reason Foval was fired and Creamer is still with Democracy Partners.
Logical leap? As in the director doesn't know what the manager is doing? How is that a leap? When you manage a job do you know what your employees do? If not then you SHOULD be fired and likely WOULD be fired when one of them does something illegal under your watch. Ignorance is not an excuse.
Don't worry...it will all come back around to Creamer....
Have you ever worked in the corporate world?
"Something" rolls down hill...ever hear of that before?
In what world do you think the people at the top take the fall for the activities of those at the bottom?
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: kruphix
And no, it's not an admission of guilt either...as you can see in his full statement.
Right, because he was going to "step back" regardless?
originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: kruphix
You're right I have never had to, but I have worked for executives at a large corporation (executive protection and they would talk to me on a personal level because they could trust that I wouldn't gossip) and yes, they have had to kiss a*s, but if anything even remotely illegal was suggested they absolutely shut that down, and the corporation is still making billions. So yes money can be obtained with out being corrupt.
originally posted by: carewemust
Why the heck is Fox News doing a segment on this tonight, and referring to the "alleged" disruptors, who "allegedly" disrupted a Chicago Trump rally. They show that undercover video, yet refer to everything as ALLEGED. Are Fox News executives being coerced by the Hillary mob machine also?
originally posted by: kruphix
So you think the billion dollar corporation you work for is all on the up and up? And you think because the executives talk to you personally, that you actually know them?
That's quite surprising really.
But I never said that they should go along with anything illegal. But if a donor has a crazy voter fraud scheme, you don't have to agree with it or implement it...just keep telling them that "it is an idea" and push it down the road. That way, you still get their donations...but you don't ever commit to any of their crazy schemes.
Maybe it is to you, but in the 25+yrs I worked there Iv'e seen 2 senior executives forced to resign and many middle management fired over very minor internal ethics violations, and ethics and ethics training is like the driving mantra, well diversity and inclusiveness too. The company doesn't even want to take a chance of having some kind of public brouhaha.
Very Machiavellian, and again maybe that's the problem.
originally posted by: kruphix
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: kruphix
You see, these people know how to handle a hit job...they don't go on twitter rants or make fun of women's looks who have accused a candidate of sexual assault.
This is called deflection. Generally and indication that you don't have a response to the topic in question.
It's not deflection, it kills the issue.
The video was about Bob Creamer and Scott Foval.
Foval is just dumb, and got fired like he deserved.
Creamer actually didn't say or do anything bad in the video. He actually told Foval to stay far away from the scheme the fake donor was talking about.
But with him stepping back, it makes the video completely irrelevant.
originally posted by: kruphix
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: kruphix
And no, it's not an admission of guilt either...as you can see in his full statement.
Right, because he was going to "step back" regardless?
I've tried to explain this multiple times, but it seems the concept is more difficult to grasp than I expected it would.
He's stepping back to get in front of a manufactured scandal, not because he got "caught" doing something illegal. They quickly fired Foval and now he is removing Democracy Partners from their role with the campaign.
Where does that leave the manufactured scandal and any further videos O'Keefe is going to release?
It leaves it with nothing to talk about really, the two main subjects they were after have already been removed from the situation.
originally posted by: proximo
originally posted by: kruphix
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: kruphix
And no, it's not an admission of guilt either...as you can see in his full statement.
Right, because he was going to "step back" regardless?
I've tried to explain this multiple times, but it seems the concept is more difficult to grasp than I expected it would.
He's stepping back to get in front of a manufactured scandal, not because he got "caught" doing something illegal. They quickly fired Foval and now he is removing Democracy Partners from their role with the campaign.
Where does that leave the manufactured scandal and any further videos O'Keefe is going to release?
It leaves it with nothing to talk about really, the two main subjects they were after have already been removed from the situation.
Really? We can't talk about the illegal activities they are boasting about because they "lost" their job. sorry that is a lame excuse even for you.
Besides you would have to be an idiot to think these two dirtbags won't surface again, because they were successfully doing their job. In fact I am about 100 percent positive they are still doing there jobs, just for a different entity that is still funded by the dnc.
originally posted by: LockNLoad
originally posted by: kruphix
It's not a problem, it's just how the game is played.
See you are a part of the problem, with attitudes like yours governments will continue to get more and more corrupt.
I actually feel kind of sorry for you.